In 2003 Dr David Kelly was found dead in the woods. Caught in a political vortex, Dr Kelly had been forced to appear before a televised government committee investigating whether he had accused British government figures of planting in a dossier the questionable claim that WMDs could be unleashed from Iraq in 45 minutes. The Hutton Inquiry concluded that Dr Kelly took his own life. But did he? This blog takes a closer look....
Contact: RowenaThursby@onetel.com

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Kelly family appeals for calm after new murder claims by MP

Brian Brady and Rachel ShieldsIndependent

21 October 2007

The family of David Kelly, the government weapons expert, last night appealed for him to be allowed to rest in peace as an MP claimed that he was assassinated to stop him revealing more details about the "lies" that took Britain to war in Iraq.

The outspoken Liberal Democrat Norman Baker, who has spent four years campaigning for a public investigation into the death of Dr Kelly, claims he has unearthed fresh evidence that raises significant questions over the official verdict that the scientist killed himself by slashing his wrist and taking an overdose of painkillers.

In a book to be published next month, Mr Baker will claim that Dr Kelly, who blew the whistle on the "dodgy" Iraq dossier, was murdered, possibly by anti-Saddam Iraqis who supported the invasion. The "crime" was allegedly covered up by the British authorities.The MP for Lewes highlighted alleged inconsistencies in evidence surrounding the case, including the disclosure that no fingerprints were found on the knife Dr Kelly used to cut his wrist – and questions about the amount of blood found at the scene.

But details of the latest twist in the Kelly saga provoked an angry reaction from his close relatives last night. Dr Kelly's brother-in-law, Michael Pape, said the family did not want to comment further on a tragedy that was investigated in public during the 10-week Hutton inquiry in 2003.

"It is just raking over old bones," said Mr Pape, who is married to Dr Kelly's sister, Sarah, a plastic surgeon. "I can't speak for the whole family, but I've read it all [Baker's theories], every word, and I don't believe it.

"All that stuff about there only being a small amount of blood found on the ground, it doesn't make sense – blood seeps through soil. Even if there was only a bloodstain the size of a 2p piece on the ground, the rest will have sunk down into the soil. If he'd been found on tarmac, it would have spread all around him."

Mr Baker's claims that he had uncovered new information relating to the Kelly case also received a cool reception from police and fellow politicians who took part in a number of investigations into the circumstances leading up to the scientist's death.

A spokeswoman for the Thames Valley Police, which led the investigation into his death, said the force had no intention of reopening its investigation.

Lord Foulkes, a member of the parliamentary committee that quizzed Dr Kelly shortly before he died, after he had been "outed" as the mole who revealed doubts over the case for war on Iraq, questioned Mr Baker's motivations. He said: "If this came from anyone else, people might be more inclined to believe it. I don't want to castigate Norman, but he is one of the usual suspects when it comes to coming up with conspiracy theories."

Mr Baker said: "The more I examined [the verdict], the more it became clear to me that Hutton's judgment was faulty and suspect in virtually all important respects." His book, The Strange Death of David Kelly, makes a number of claims. He says that no fingerprints were found on the knife allegedly used by the scientist to cut his wrist; that there was " remarkably little" blood at the scene, despite death being officially recorded as due to a severed artery; that only one other person in the UK committed suicide in the same way in 2003; and that the level of painkillers found in Dr Kelly's stomach was "less than a third" of a normal fatal overdose.

His book contains details of meetings with "informants" who, he claims, provided confidential background details of the alleged operation to assassinate Dr Kelly. The MP alleges that opponents of Saddam Hussein feared Dr Kelly would "discredit" them by revealing "misinformation" they had planted to bolster the case for British and American intervention in Iraq.

NOTE : The point about the blood is not that there was not much blood on the ground -- naturally, a large part of it would have have seeped into the soil; the point is, that it is extremely unlikely, according to practising London-based vascular surgeon John Scurr (and several other doctors/surgeons), that Dr Kelly could have lost much more than a pint of blood from transecting a single ulnar artery. No one dies from losing a pint of blood. The primary cause of death - given by the forensic pathologist as "haemorrhage" -- is therefore very unconvincing. The paramedics who gave the press conference in 2004 were shocked, less by the small amount of blood on the ground, as by the fact that very little blood (almost none) was found splashed onto Dr Kelly's clothing. They had attended hundreds of suicide scenes over a period of 15 years, and in all the wrist-slashing cases there had been extensive blood splattering on the clothing - "like a chainsaw massacre", one said.Rowena Thursby

The following article says pretty much all I wish to say in this comment for this article already several days past; however, I, as usual, end up adding a few words of my own. Anyway, I suggest that the following article, while short and simple to understand, is very important.

"Media Disinformation regarding the Death of David Kelly", by Xymphora, Oct 24 2007, originally Oct 22nd, GlobalResearch.ca

Besides that, I'll add that it's disgusting the attitude that Dr Kelly's brother-in-law has demonstrated for us all, but it's also good for us to know what the or some of the family members have for views on this story of the ASSASSINATION of Dr Kelly.

So far, I've read several of Norman Baker's articles on his investigation and published at the Daily Mail over the past week, and I find his work and articles very, very appreciable; am very glad to have learned of and read them. However, I agree with Xymphora regarding the so-called theory that Iraqi dissidents might have been the killers; she argues very, strongly well that it is, au contraire, very unlikely. There was no longer any point for them to do any harm to Dr Kelly, and that's if any Iraqi dissidents ever had the slightest thought of doing him harm, I'll add.

On that point, I think that Norman Baker should very carefully reconsider, according to Xymphora's explanation.

And I appreciate the comment added by Rowena Thursby; a very worthwhile comment it is.

Anonymous is right about Mr Baker's investigation and reporting of it, although I'd use a stronger word than 'beneficial'; thinking, instead, that it's quite critical, crucial. Even if it was unlikely to have any corrective effect in terms of the corruption of govt, his work nonetheless is crucial, and very well done. He seems to have only overlooked the possibility or likelihood that he was being given a very false lead by the person who told him that the killing was committed by Iraqi dissidents. It's a lengthy and exhaustive investigation that Mr Baker conducted, so that he overlooked one item is not something for us to be surprised about; it certainly does not discredit his investigation.

He refers to medical experts who have written articles very critical of the Hutton Inquiry or its report, and the sloppy coroner work or reporting, and the following is one of their articles; at the end of which there's an index of additional articles by them. I highly recommend reading some of these, particularly people who believe the bogus govt "line", who "swallow that bait, hook and sinker".

"No Inquest into the Death of Dr. David Kelly:The Elephant in the Living Room of the United Kingdom",by Dr. C. Stephen Frost and Dr. David Halpin and Dr. Chris Burns-Cox, July 15, 2007, GlobalResearch.ca

There are more articles from other sources and which can be found by using the following advanced search page, searching on 'Kelly', and from Jan. 1 2005 to Nov. 1 2007, f.e. GlobalResearch.ca search

I'm disgusted by the so-called police work; even if it's all too common of police to side with fascist state. It's very reflective of TREASON, and I don't have anything better to say about Dr Kelly's brother-in-law.

Have his family members been bought, or what? Dr Kelly's brother-in-law certainly seems as if he may very well have been bought, one way or another, at one time or another, but if from before, then remaining bought. I get that sort of scent anyway, and it is possible, for any state that would commit an inquiry as corrupt as the Hutton one has been and wittingly participate in fabricating false bases for war of totally criminal aggression, any such govt should be expected to be able to stop to any and all disgusting and criminal measures or methods. There are NO boundaries or limitations; except for that which is literally impossible, for such govts or powers.

Whether it be lying for the sake of profit or fear from threat, it's something we know many enough people have done; to have chosen to commit the lies. There's nothing new about that.

In any case, the brother-in-law's words are very suspect, IMO.

And as for the Lord ... whatever his name is saying that Norman Baker has a reputation for being a "conspiracy theorist", Mr Baker addresses this bogus crirtism quite well in one of his recent articles posted the Daily Mail. As he says, conspiracies DO happen; and while I'll add that we don't have laws against criminal conspiracies because conspiracies don't exist, never have happened, and could never possibly happen. We have the laws because of the very opposite reasons.

N'est-ce pas!

We certainly can't call all of the secret machinations for fabricating false claims against Saddam Hussein and his govt, for so-called justifying the totally criminal war on Iraq, anything else or less than CONSPIRACY between multiple individuals in the U.S. govt, and the U.S. govt or Bush administration and the UK govt or Blair administration. That most definitely was conspiracy, and not just in theory; real conspiracy, and of the most extremely criminal kind.

Norman Baker did good work, and Brits and all of the rest of us should be very thankful for his work. As corrupt as politics are, it's refreshing to be provided with truly honourable examples; even if they are infrequent.

Hopefully, he'll reconsider the point Xymphora has highlighted. It's unfortunate that this reconsideration is only after publication of his book; it would have been great if he had been made aware of an excellent argument like hers. But we can read the book while keeping her point in mind, TOO; just a question of helping to make it known.